Romney’s big foreign policy speech: Is there any “there” there?

In two words: not much. The speech breaks no new ground. Nor does it draw sharp substantive distinctions between Gov. Romney and President Obama when it comes to U.S. foreign policy.

Romney’s VMI remarks are, admittedly, highly critical of the Obama administration. But this is mainly a matter of rhetorical tone. Romney talks passionately and at length about the president’s purported lack of leadership and resolve. When Romney gets down to actual details, however, his proposals differ only modestly from Obama’s current policies. His language on Syria, for instance, is very carefully hedged, stopping well short of a call for direct U.S. military intervention:

“In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.”

The bottom line: To judge from the VMI speech, Romney’s foreign policy appears to be much like Obama’s, except with more hair on its chest.

Romney’s discussion of the Middle East is extensive but contradictory. He makes much of the imperative of supporting democracy in the Arab world. Then, a few paragraphs later, he promises to strengthen our ties with the autocracies of the Persian Gulf. Lest I be accused of partisanship, let me stipulate: Obama’s position on the Arab Spring is also intellectually incoherent. Neither candidate appears willing to acknowledge the painful truth: that our support for democracy and human rights in the Middle East, though real, takes second place to promoting vital national interests like the security of oil supplies, the sanctity of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, and base rights for our navy in the Persian Gulf.

Joe Barnes is the Baker Institute’s Bonner Means Baker Fellow. From 1979 to 1993, he was a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State, serving in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

Romney should be more knowledgeable of foreign policy since he knows every corner of the world he can hide his money! He’s already has international financial ties which run all the way from Switzerland to the Cayman Islands. Never mind that he’s never been involved with politics outside of the US- only his millions of dollars have. Read about the role of Mitt’s money and his Magic Mormon Underwear are playing in the polls at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/05/mitt-romneys-magic-mormon-underwear.html where you can see for yourself the true power of both on display in full color!

Romney, to the naive, is talking a good line in his Foreign Policy speech. Yet, what is he really saying? His presentation is basically that America should do what it is already doing under Obama’s good leadership; only he would be better.

And it is a jingoistic appeal to the American psyche of “no apologies” and American “supremacy”; oops, I mean exceptional-ism…. Mitt, practicing for more wars and foreign nation rebuilding when America needs a rebuild first.

Obama, somehow, is not ever good, never mind exceptional. I guess the difference is a clear as black and white to Mitt. Why just look at how long he took to find bin Laden. And it took nearly 24 months in order to recover some 5 million jobs after putting a floor under the 750,000 jobs per month free fall. What an unexceptional fellow. Of course, as in the debate performance, Mitt is “moving to the middle”. Except that a 180 degree move is not a move. It’s a lie. To many lies Mitt! Really. But I digress….

Obama is leading the world to peace and he has a lot of clout. That does not mean there will be peace in all quarters at all times. Mitt talks about hoping the tide of war is receding and suggests it is escalating. He talks like Iraq and the Middle East quest of peace should be resolved in Obama’s first 4 years along with the economic issues America faces. All assignments due before election day! Mitt, this has been a decades long struggle. He suggests a new President is needed for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. No Mitt, that’s not it; what is needed is a new Prime Minister in Israel. And some moves by Palestine, and in that order. Or a complete change in approach by Bibi vis-a-vis Obama.

Mitt, needs to get a grip; really. Just because he is also a W does not mean he has to act like one; on steroids to boot. Talking tough is easy for bullies. Best to talk softly and carry a big stick in diplomacy like Obama. Ask Osama about it.

Might does not make right. Right makes might, and we don’t need to be building other nations. Anyway, let’s focus on building an America that will last. And don’t tell me America has to conquer the world before it can be safe and focus on fixing itself…

Iranian leadership’s ambitions must be stopped; yet this must be done well. At the right time, with the right tools. Mitt and Bibi too see this as some political game. Sorry, it is a dangerous game and we could all get burned….

This is just one critical inflection point in global politics. Mitt has no idea what he is doing and his advisers are Neocon dinosaurs; which shows in his speech. Mitt and GOP are willing to say anything anywhere, any time; regardless of its veracity and impact on the United States or others. And by the way, Obama is no apologist, just ask Osama.

Finally and importantly, as you so well point out, everyone needs to work with President Obama, rather than try to subvert him in his efforts across the globe…..

No substance in difference between Obama’s Syrian policy and that of Romney.

Really? Obama has advised our Middle East allies who have some very big dogs in this fight and want to send heavy weapons to the rebels to defend against Assad’s tanks and helicopter gunships but Obama/Clinton are faint of heart and fear these weapons might fall into unfriendly hands so have vetoed this supply.

Romney says we will identify forces who share our values etc. and “ensure they get the weapons needed to defeat Assad’s helicopters, tanks, and fighter jets.”

More hair on chest indeed!

On the subject of a retired diplomat keeping the faith with State, readers would welcome your views as the cowardly and treacherous betrayal of our courageous Ambassador and staff in Benghazi. Like the plea from the Alamo our Ambassador vitually begged for force to beef up Embassy security. But “Headquarters” at State as the lib press so delicately phrase it, headquarters, turned him down repeatedly lest it offend our Libyan brothers!

Now the American people want to know where the heck was SecState Clinton when this national emergency was in train? Obviously, she was on one of her record breaking country visits when she should have been at the helm firmly in charge and ordering every necessary action to save our ambassador. Or maybe campaigning to reelect him but that would delay her own personal ambitions.

And to date this politician has done everything in her power to avoid being linked with this fiasco lest it should stain her immaculate white robe and reputation. And so prejudice her chances four years from now.

And our press and cartoonists have yet to take note of her singular perfidy and self-serving actions once again.

By the way this citizen has no doubt that a President Romney would have responded forcefully and promptly to his ambassador’s pleas. But never mind with this precedent whoever is elected will for sure have more than one opportunity to act on the same stage. Say, Iraq and Clinton’s multi-billion dollar palace where as in Afghanistan the Taliban was allowed to regroup so it is obvious Sunnis and Shia are doing the same. Just a question of time before they act.

Romney’s foreign policy will earn the wrath of millions of people in countries where he orders invasions and wars. And there’s every reason to believe he is
going to do so. In addition,expect our intelligence services to strengthen their grip on the illegal drugs markets.

In short, Romney’s foreign policy will be just as unenlightened and dangerous
as that of Obama’s, the bushes, and Cliinton’s. Bibi will love it.

It is very clear what Romney is doing. He has, correctly, decided he cannot win by running on the Republican Party platform, so he is changing is talking points to appear to be closer to Obama, while still hoping the hard-core Republican will vote for him anyway. If he succeeds, and wins the election, it will have been done by deception, which should not give us a good feeling going forward, no matter what you think of Obama.

Romney and his Middle East policy. It will be no different, no better than Obama’s. The only difference is that Romney will have to run for re-election, and Obama can start tightening the vise in any way he wants against Israel

Romney’s position could not be more clear if it were made of lead. He will help the good guys and hurt the bad guys and he will magically be able to tell which is which from his chair in the White House. I guess it goes without saying that every able-bodied young man who is not on their mission can go occupy the Middle East.

Most of Romney’s speeches are “Obama this, and Obama that,” now, on foreign policy, he has already mis-spoken on Libya and Israel. Perhaps he should go back to “Obama this, and Obama that” and forget foreign policy. He will end up like Herman Cain, trying to remember where Libya is.

One this is for sure. We don’t need a President whose first priority is to get down on his knees to apologize to the Islamic world for our First Amendment right to free speech? The first responsibility of the President of the United States is to protect and defend the Constitution.

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Blog Search

Keyword search across all the entries in this blog.

Search

The mission of the nonpartisan James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy is to help bridge the gap between theory and practice of public
policy by drawing together experts from academic, government, media, business
and nongovernmental organizations. By involving policymakers, scholars
and students, the institute seeks to improve the debate on selected public
policy issues and to make a difference in the formulation, implementation and
evaluation of public policy. The institute’s more than 20 programs, which include research, speaking series, events and special projects, have helped attract a host of prominent leaders who provide their views and insights on key issues.